Answer

1.

1. As the counsel of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) I would file a motion to declare the defending
party in default for failure to file an answer.

Under the Rules of Court when the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner,
general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel of the corporation wherever
they may be found.

In the case at bar the summons was served personally to Atty. Casti is their legal counsel or in-house
counsel, the service of summons was validly served upon the corporation, hence the court acquired
jurisdiction over the defendant thru it’s in-house counsel. The defending party having failed to file
their answer within the time allowed which is 30 days upon receipt of the summons can be declared
in default.

Thus being the counsel of the BIR I would file a motion to declare the defendant in default for
failure to file an answer during the reglementary period.

2. I would advice the Board of Directors (BOD) to file a motion for Extension of time to file an answer.

Under Rule 11 section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that, a defendant may, for meritorious
reasons, be granted an additional period of not more that thirty (30) calendar days to file an answer.

Here, the service of summons was not properly served to the defendant corporation as Atty. Casti at
the time of the receipt was taken she was on maternity leave and making it her impossible to do
her obligation at the time the summons were served making such a meritorious reason, as stated
under the rules of court if the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines
with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel of the corporation. Even thou in their
by-laws which states that Atty. Casti is the one authorized to receive summons it cannot over rule
the, exclusive list under the rules of court.

Hence having a meritorious ground filing a motion for extension of the time to file an answer would
be the advice I would give to the BOD

3. The Service of summons to:

a.) As to Nikola service of summons is valid as he is the president of Smith, Inc.
b.) As to Jamal service of summons is invalid as he is only a vice-president of Smith, Inc.
c.) As to Atty. Casti service of summons is valid as she is a in-house counsel for Smith, Inc.
d.) As to Siguion-Reyna firm it is not proper as they are external counsel for the corporation.

Under the Rules of Court when the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel of the corporation
wherever they may be found. This being an exclusive list only the person with the said position
may be validly served the summons against the corporation.
 2.

As the Judge I would grant the motion to declare the defendant in default.

The Amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Revised Rules), which became effective on 01 May
2020, revised the rules on motions to dismiss. Rule 15, sec. 12 of the Revised Rules states that a
motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading except when it raises any of the following grounds: (1)
the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim; (2) the pendency of another
action between the same parties for the same cause; and (3) the cause of action is barred by a
prior judgment or by the statute of limitations (Rule 15, Sec. 12 [a]).

Here, the motion to dismissed filed by Atty Manny is a prohibited pleading, hence the
negligence of Atty Manny on not knowing the rules is unwarranted. Being a lawyer it is his duty
to know the current laws and rules and cannot make an excuse of not knowing the said rules as
there is a mandatory continuing legal education.
 3.

1. I would deny the manifestation of Atty. Clint.

Under the Rules of Court, a defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in his or her
answer, this include Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil which includes when
the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party.

In here plaintiff is correct in stating that the proper remedy would be an affirmative defense
stating in an answer alleging that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Hence, I would deny the manifestation of Atty. Clint as it was improperly laid and not filed in an
answer as provided by the rules of court.

2. If this case is one for an ejectment case my answer would still to deny the manifestation.

In an ejectment case the service of summons should be served against the tenant, being the
proper party of the case. Hence the summons served against the tenant being the proper party
in the case of ejectment is valid. And as stated earlier in the first question affirmative defenses
must be stated in an answer and not merely a manifestation.
 4.

As the judge I would grant the motion and set the motion for hearing to give the petitioner a chance
to prove her allegation of whether or not she was indeed notified or not of the pre-trial

Under Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, states that when duly notified, x x x A similar failure
on the on the part of the defendant and counsel shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his or
her evidence ex-parte within ten calendar days from termination of the pre-trial.

In here, the contention or allegation of Angela that she was not notified of the pre trial, is
meritorious hence to set the motion for hearing would give Angela a chance to prove if whether or
not she was indeed notified or not of the pre-trial.
 5.

I would resolve the issue in favor of Vanderbiilt

Under the Rules of Court, as a general rule, a court’s lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage
of the proceedings even on appeal. The Tijam ruling applies only to exceptional circumstances as
exception to the general rule, laches should have been clearly present; that is lack of jurisdiction
must have been raised so belatedly. The contention that the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be
waived by estoppel through active participation in the trial.

In here it can be gain said that Morris active participation in the trial estopped him from raising the
courts lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. It can be seen that Morris actively participated in
all stages of the proceedings and even asked for an affirmative relief only upon when the trial court
ruled in favor of the plaintiff did he raised the lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter thus
estoppel by laches would justified in this case.

Hence, Vanderbilt’s contention should be granted and the appeal be denied.

 6.

I would tell Jessica in order that her citizen’s suit may be filed in court, her suit must clearly state a
description of the cause of action, and the description of the relief prayed for. Without any issue to
resolve the citizen’s suit will not prosper. The broad statement of filing a citizen suit representing all
stray dogs will not prosper if there is no substantial issue to be resolve. She must state possible
violations of laws concerning the habitat of the stray dogs.
 7.

1. No, the class suit is not proper.

Under the Rules of Court the following are the requisites of class suit, that the subject matter of
the controversy is one of common or general interest to many person, that the parties affected
are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, that parties bringing
the class suit are sufficiently numerous and are proper representative of the class, and that the
representative sues or defends for the benefit of all

In here there is no class suit in an action filed by Erika to recover damages in behalf of the all-
female students and the student body in general against Dr. Enriko. There is no common or
general interest in the case at bar, each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct injury not
shared by other members of the class.

2. There is a cause of action.

Under Section 2 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court it provides that a cause of action is the act or
omission by which a party violates a right of another.

In here the student are accusing him of sexual harassment claiming that his actions were sexual
in nature and had offended or humiliated them.

Hence there is a cause of action.

3. As the counsel for Dr. Enriko, I would file an answer with affirmative defense that the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Under the Rules of Court one of the grounds for the dismissal of the complaint is to file an
affirmative defense in his or her answer for the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

In a class suit it is not the common question of law that sustains a class suit but a common
interest in the subject matter of the controversy. There is no class suit in an action for damages
filed by the Erika in behalf of the student body, as there is no common or general interest in the
complaint filed against Dr. Enriko. Each has a distinct and separate interest which must be
proven individually.
 8.

Under the Rules of Court a defense is affirmative hypothetically admitting the allegation of the
pleading of the claimant but would bar recovery by the claiming party. It is a defense which is
not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action but one which if
established will be a good defense, such as fraud. If fraud is established the illegal act or the act
which violated the rights of another by the defendant would justify such act.
 9.

No this is not a valid service of summons.

Under Sec.6 Rule 14 of the rules of court, only if service in person cannot be made promptly can
the process server resort to substituted service. Promptly is specifically defined as: if, for
justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally after at least three (3) attempts on
two (2) different dates, service may be effected by :

(a) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence to a person at least eighteen
(18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein;

(b) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof. A competent person includes, but is not limited to,
one who customarily receives correspondences for the defendant;

(c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her authority and
purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners’ association or condominium
corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of the community or the building where the
defendant may be found; and

(d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail address, if allowed by the
court.

In here summons against Kayla was served through a text message, which is not one of the
enumerated under Sec.6 Rule 14 for substituted service of summons.
 10

No the Judge cannot compel Sofia to discuss the possibility of amicable, it should be channeled
to the her counsel and not to Sofia.

Under the guidelines in pre-trial in civil cases, The court shall initially ask the parties and their

lawyers if an amicable settlement of the case is possible. If not, the judge may confer with the
parties with the opposing counsel to consider the following:

a. Given the evidence of the plaintiff presented in his pre-trial brief to support his claim, what
manner of compromise is considered acceptable to the defendant at the present stage?

b. Given the evidence of the defendant described in his pre-trial brief to support his defense,
what manner of compromise is considered acceptable to the plaintiff at the present stage?

If not successful, the court shall confer with the party and his counsel separately. If the manner
of compromise is not acceptable, the judge shall confer with the parties without their counsel
for the same purpose of settlement.
 11.

No, the service of summons is not proper.

Under Section 15, Rule 14 of the rules of court provides that, when the defendant is the
Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a
province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its
executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.

In here summons was served to the president himself not to the Solicitor General. Hence the
service of summons is not proper.
 12.

Yes, the summons was properly served.

Under section 10 rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that when a minor, insane or otherwise an
incompetent, service shall be made, upon him personally and on his legal guardian if he has one, or if
has none upon his guardian ad litem. If the defendant is a minor, service may be made also upon his
father or mother.

in here summons was served upon the Raci and Her mother. The law does not distinguish if whether or
not the mother is still has custody of the child, it simply provides that such summons may be serve upon
his father or mother no other requirements were given.
 13.

No, the service of summons was not proper. ‘

Under section 6 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that service in person on defendant whenever
practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person; or if he
refuses to receive and sin for it, by tendering it to him. Only if service in person cannot be made
promptly can the process server resort to substituted service. If substituted service of summons is
justified then the option is by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence to a person
of suitable age and discretion, have enough discernment top understand the importance of summons.

In here the summons was not served in the Emmanuelle’s residence but to Jamie’s residence who was
living in another home. Hence it is not the residence of Emmanuelle’s hence the substituted service of
summons is no valid.
 14.

Yes, the service of summons is proper.

Under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, if provides that service of summons may be served in
case of extra-territorial service.

1. With leave of court served outside the Philippines by personal service or as provided for in
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party;
2. With leave of court served by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, in which case a
copy of the summons and order of court must also be sent by registered mail to the last known
address of defendant;
3. Any other manner the court may deem sufficient.

In here the service was served via email, under the rule such service of summons may be valid as long
as the court finds it deem sufficient. Hence the summons is proper.
 15.

Nassir is more correct.

For a person to intervene in a suit, the legal interest must be, actual and material on a matter in
litigation, of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the
direct legal operation and effect of the judgment, not simply contingent or expectant.

In here Nassir legal interest over the settlement of the estate of Fragujo is the condominium unit that he
bought from Fragujo which is evidence by a notarized deed of absolute sale. He will gain or lose his legal
interest over the condominium if the intervention is not granted.

Hence Nassir is more correct in filing the motion for intervention as he has a legal interest over the
estate proceedings.
 16.

I would sustain the objection of the defense

As a general rule deposition is not applicable in criminal cases. In a case decided by the Supreme Court
provided an exemption in the case of People vs Sergio, the extraordinary factual circumstances
surrounding the case of Mary Jane Veloso, wherein she was convicted by final judgement and her
detention facility is in Indonesia while awaiting execution by firing squad.

In the case at bar Lee is not yet convicted of the drug trafficking in Victoria Hong Kong the case is still
pending and no final judgement is issued by the court of Hong Kong. Hence the exemption cannot be
given to the case of Lee as both have different circumstance.

The purpose of deposition is to Contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a

witness; Any purpose by the adverse party where the deponent is a party; or Any purpose by any party if
the court finds that:

a. The witness is dead;

b. The witness resides more than 100 kms. from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines.
Unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the deposition;

c. The witness is unable to testify because of age, sickness, infirmity or imprisonment;

d. The party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by
subpoena; or

e. Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable in the
interest of justice.
 17.

I would file specific denial of the material facts alleged in the pleading of Atty.Knee for malicious
prosecution, that the report against Atty. Knee were not false and groundless.

To constitute 'malicious prosecution,' there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a
sinister design to vex or humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant
knowing that his charges were false and groundless.

In here there is no malicious prosecution Nariku’s report was not false nor groundless, as Atty. Knee was
sanctioned with the penalty of reprimand. Hence such finding of the HRD of the DPWH can be an
evidence that the report was not false and groundless.
 18.

A.) Yes, Erwin have a right to amend the complaint as a matter of right, Once, at any time before a
responsive pleading is served or in the case of a reply, at any time within ten calendar days after
it is served.

B.) Yes the phrase “I am still in love with you” constitute as an extrajudicial admission if pleading is
amended.

An amended pleading supersedes the pleading it amends. However, admissions in the

superseded pleading may be offered in evidence against the pleader. Claims or defenses alleged
therein but not incorporated or reiterated in the amended pleading are deemed waived. They
cease to be judicial admissions. Thus, they are to be considered as extrajudicial admissions and
may be proved by the party relying thereon by formal offer in evidence of such original pleading.
 19

A.) As the counsel of Jamel in order to protect his interest, I would file a pleading for Non-
Joinder of Parties to the action reivindicatoria with writ of possession against Stephen.

B.) As the counsel of Stephen I would file an answer with an affirmative defense that Laura lack
of legal capacity to sue and lack of legal personality to sue. As she is not a real party-in-
interest.

C.) As the Judge I would resolve the case in favor of Jamel as he has a notarized deed of sale of
the condominium unit he bought, to which the notarization by a notary public converts a
private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further
proof of its authenticity.